Category Archives: ontario referendum on mmp

What Is MMP?

democracy and good government, ontario referendum on mmp,

This is the second of three posts concerning the the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform’s recommendation that Ontario vote yes to adopt a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) voting system in the October 10, 2007 referendum. The first outlined the need for change; the next will refute some common arguments from the “no” side.

Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) is a “best of both words” voting system. It will allow us in Ontario to keep the parts of our current system that we like (for example, that our MPPs represent our specific geographic area) while adding on some extra features, the most notable of which is proportional representation. MMP is used in some other countries including Germany and New Zealand, but the specific system we’ll be voting on was designed by Ontarians for Ontario.

So, how would this system work? First, voters would cast two votes: one for their preferred local candidate, and one for the party they support over all. It’s up to voters if they want to place their candidate vote and their party vote with the same party or not. This new system removes the obligation of having to vote for a candidate you dislike to elect your party of choice, or vice versa.

Next, the candidate votes are counted the old fashioned way; whichever candidate gets the most votes in each riding wins, same as before.

That’s when MMP’s extra features kick in. After all the candidate votes are counted and all of those seats have been allocated, we get to take a step back and see if we’ve elected Members with proportionality to the party vote–that second vote you cast. Proportionality means that the number of Members elected from a party should be roughly equivalent to the percentage of the vote that party gets. That’s what people mean when they talk about proportional representation.

That’s accomplished through another group of seats–the party vote seats–that can be distributed to compensate for discrepancies in proportionality (eg, party X got 10% of the vote but no seats, while party Y got 40% of the vote but 60% of the seats). These “top-up” seats are filled with Members from lists that are supplied by the parties.

(It’s important to note that not only do parties have to make these lists public well before the election, for the sake of transparency they also have to make public the process by which the lists were generated. In other countries where MMP is used, parties often chose to “zipper” the lists so that they alternate male/female, ensuring greater gender parity. Also, only parties that receive at least 3% of the vote will qualify to elect list seats, so only parties with clear support will be elected to the legislature.)

At the end of the day we end up with a legislature that more closely reflects the diverse makeup of the province, and more accurately reflects the will of the electorate. By its nature, MMP also forces parties to be more cooperative, which leads to stable coalition governments (as opposed to the negative and combative minority governments our current system has been giving us at the federal level).

Still don’t get it or have other questions? Let me know by commenting below. I’m going to continually improve this post with your feedback as we move towards the referendum on October 10th. Also, some more technical details about MMP in Ontario are available here, and in the Citizens’ Assembly’s report, due May 15th.

The Need For Change

democracy and good government, ontario referendum on mmp, ,

This is the first of what will be three posts concerning the the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform‘s recommendation that Ontario vote yes to adopt a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) voting system in the October 10, 2007 referendum. The next two will cover what is MMP, and refute arguments from the “no” side.

Most of you probably already know this, but I thought that before we got into what MMP is and why we should adopt it, it would be useful to review what’s wrong with the system we’ve got now. (I’m taking much of the below information from Fair Vote Canada.)

Admittedly, there are flaws and trade-offs with every voting system. The system we (Canada and all the provinces) use now, however, is particularly ill-suited for the time and place that we find ourselves in. It’s known as First Past the Post (FPP) or Single Member Plurality (SMP), which basically means that whoever gets the most votes in a given riding wins that riding, even if they haven’t received the majority of votes. (In other words, they win even if most people voted for someone else.)

As this is applied on a provincial or national level, the result is that a party can win only 40% of the vote, but get 60% of the seats, and 100% of the power. What’s worse, is that if you happen to live in a riding where your preferred candidate doesn’t have a chance (for example, if you’re a Conservative in Toronto), your vote doesn’t count towards electing anyone. And in a democracy, every vote should count.

Here are some federal examples of the strange distortions that our voting system has created:

  • In 1984, the Progressive Conservatives win 50% of the votes but gain nearly 75% of the seats
  • In 2004, more than 500,000 Green voters fail to elect a single MP anywhere, while fewer than 500,000 Liberal voters in Atlantic Canada alone elect 22 Liberal MPs
  • The 2004 election produces a House with only 21% women MPs, with Canada now ranking 36th among nations in percentage of women MPs, well behind most Western European countries
  • In 1993, the newly formed Bloc Quebecois comes in fourth in the popular vote, but forms the Official Opposition by gaining more seats than the second place Reform Party and third place Tories
  • In 2000, 2.3 million Liberal voters in Ontario elect 100 Liberal MPs while the other 2.2 million Ontario voters elect only 3 MPs from other parties
  • In 1993, more than two million votes for Kim Campbell’s Progressive Conservatives translate into two seats – or one seat for every 1,000,000 votes. Meanwhile, the voting system gives the Liberal Party one seat for every 32,000 votes

The biggest winners under our current system are regional parties like the Bloc, while the biggest losers are women and minorities (our current system is extremely good at electing white men, and less effective at electing everyone else). Ultimately, people feel like their votes don’t count, and/or that they can’t vote for the candidates or parties they truly believe in for fear of accidentally electing someone they’re truly afraid of.

The good news is, we can do better…

Yay for Democracy Part II

democracy and good government, green party, ontario referendum on mmp

Below, for your reading pleasure, is the statement I submitted today to the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform on behalf of the Green Party of Canada. If you’re not sure what I’m talking about, the Citizens’ Assembly is a group of randomly selected Ontario voters who are currently deciding whether or not to change our voting system, and if so, what we should change it to. Ontarians will then get a chance to vote on their proposal at the same time as the next provincial election, October 4th 2007. For more information on what they’re up to, or about the “principals” I talk about below, their website is a good place to start.

Official Written Submission by the Green Party of Canada to the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform

In writing this statement to the Citizens’ Assembly, we are struck with a dilemma. Fundamentally, the Green Party of Canada believes that reforms to our democratic and electoral systems must, by definition, be made by citizens, not just politicians. Therefore, we must begin by endorsing the process you are following, and acknowledging that our views are no more valuable than those of any other group of people.

That being said, we, as a party, have a membership of 10,000 Canadians, a large number of whom are from Ontario. In the last federal election we received the support of 665,940 Canadians, and our two highest ridings (as measured by percentage and total votes) were both in Ontario. Our lack of representation in parliament, as you know, is often used as a textbook example of what is wrong with our current electoral system. These facts provide us with a unique perspective, as well as with a significant amount of credibility on the subject.

We also feel it’s important for us to share our opinions with you, a provincial group, even though we are a national party. That’s because the decision you make will almost certainly have national implications. You therefore have a unique opportunity to improve democracy not only in Ontario, but in Canada.

What We Value

The Green Party understands that no electoral system is perfect. Therefore, while none of the principals you’ve listed should be sneezed at, some must be prioritized above others. Of the nine, Voter Choice and Fairness of Representation stand out, as they are fundamental to the health of our democracy. If voters do not feel like they have a political choice that reflects their views, or if our government does not represent its population, we may want to question whether the transliteration of democracy — rule by the people — truly applies. Accountability and Strong Voter Participation are also principals that we value highly.

Stable and Effective Government and Effective Parliament are also laudable goals, though the use of the word “effective” in both makes these principals more likely to be influenced by the eye of the beholder. Your documentation suggests that government and parliament are more stable and effective when comprised of majority governments with one, strong party in opposition. We would suggest you consider the possibility that this definition contains a bias towards the current system that is not necessarily founded in fact. Instead, we would submit that the argument that majority governments can more easily implement their agenda means they are also less likely to reflect the values and priorities of Ontarians, or to listen to the other duly elected voices in the legislature. If the goal is democracy as defined, surely this must make those governments and parliaments less effective, not more.

It may seem odd that, up until now, we have not mentioned Legitimacy. That’s because in a democracy, legitimacy is the result of the successful application of the first four principals we mentioned. The electoral system will have the “confidence” and “reflect the values” of Ontarians when it elects governments that represent them.

Finally, one comment about your additional principal, Simplicity and Practicality. Again, we agree that this must be a key consideration when designing a new system, if indeed that is what you choose to do. However, please also strongly consider the intelligence of voters. Political issues themselves are often not simple. If we don’t believe voters are able to understand a ranked ballot or a regional magnitude, for example, what makes us think they’re qualified to make decisions regarding the governance of the province? The Green Party believes and trusts in the ability of voters to make the right choices when they have the right information, and when the electoral system accurately communicates their choices.

The Current System

The current electoral system in Ontario (and the rest of Canada) does not provide for adequate voter choice or fairness of representation, and therefore lacks legitimacy and effectiveness. The many examples of serious anomalies are no doubt very familiar to you by now, and therefore don’t need to be repeated. Suffice it to say that the current system is not doing a good job of fairly reflecting the nuanced political views of all Ontarians, and is doing an even worse job of electing proportional numbers of various groups, including women and minorities. While there are admittedly many factors influencing these electoral outcomes, our electoral system itself is a key one.

Another key indicator of the current system’s inadequacy is the number of voters who feel like they can’t vote for who they think is the best choice, for fear of unintended consequences. Whether you’re a Tory in Toronto or a Green…well, anywhere…you could be forgiven for thinking that your vote doesn’t count. For a democracy, that’s unacceptable.

The Need for Change

Therefore, yes, the Green Party believes there is a need for change. A new electoral system must give a voice to every Ontarian, ensure that all votes are counted equally, and help to create a legislature that reflects the demographic and political mix of its population. Some will argue that, since no system is perfect, we’ll just be trading one set of problems for another. They may be right, but the problems we inherit are almost certain to be of less consequence than those we do away with.

Obviously, it would be possible to design a worse electoral system than the one we have, but we find it unlikely that a group of citizens who have spent so much time studying the issue will be capable of doing so. The one caution we will make is that the new system should not give new expanded powers to party leaders, particularly with regards to the formation of party lists in a list or MMP system. The centralization of power with party leaders does not serve democracy, and leads to reduced transparency, accountability, and voter choice. Instead, there may be creative ways of generating the list, including the so-called “best loser” system, where the list is comprised of all the candidates from a party who failed to win seats, in descending order of the number of votes they received.

While many of our members and the authors of this document have their own preferences for different voting systems, we will not include them here, as the party’s position is that that decision should rest with you. Additionally, some of us have made our preferences known though individual presentations and written submissions.

Thank you for taking the time to review our submission, and for all of the hard work and service you’ve given and will continue to give as members of the assembly. We look forward to reading your report.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Green Party of Canada by Chris Tindal, Democratic Reform Advocate.